Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
S v Ncube and Another (Review) (CA&R25/2024) [2025] ZANCHC 40 (5 May 2025)
The High Court held that a special review before sentence was not justified because the magistrate’s doubts arose from post-conviction events, not a procedural irregularity.
S v Joubert (Review) (03/2023) [2023] ZANWHC 180 (2 October 2023)
The High Court set aside a regional court conviction after finding the accused had not pleaded afresh in de novo proceedings and the earlier review order was misread.
S v Green (R113/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 137 (18 August 2016)
The court found that the magistrate's failure to allow the accused's legal representative to address the court before conviction constituted a gross irregularity. Although section 304A generally does not apply to cases where the accused is legally represented, the nature of the irregularity in this case was so severe that the proceedings could not stand. The court clarified that section 304A, not section 304(4), was the applicable provision since the accused had been convicted but not yet sentenced. The conviction was therefore set aside, and the matter was ordered to commence de novo before…
Source excerpt
S v Thobalo (SHW25/2013) [2015] ZAFSHC 191 (8 October 2015)
The court held that proceedings before a retired magistrate were abortive and a nullity, so no formal setting aside was needed and the trial could restart de novo.
S v Mokoena (98/2011) [2011] ZAFSHC 57 (17 March 2011)
On special review, the High Court set aside a conviction entered under section 112(1)(a), holding the matter should have proceeded under section 112(1)(b).
S v Matthews and Another (83/10) [2010] ZANCHC 71 (17 December 2010)
The district court did not have the necessary punitive jurisdiction to convict the accused of robbery with aggravating circumstances, as the prescribed minimum sentence exceeds its sentencing powers. The plea explanation failed to admit all essential elements of the charge and was merely a repetition of the charge sheet, lacking sufficient factual detail. The accused were not properly advised of the seriousness of the charge or the implications of the Minimum Sentencing Act. The proceedings were grossly irregular and not in accordance with justice, warranting the setting aside of the convicti…
Source excerpt
S v Mofokeng [2010] ZAFSHC 7 (4 February 2010)
The High Court set aside a conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm after finding the evidence supported the accused’s self-defence.
S v May (539/2006) [2006] ZAFSHC 70 (25 May 2006)
The court found that the accused had already been convicted and sentenced for the same offence in a previous matter. The subsequent conviction and sentence in the present case were therefore irregular and not in accordance with the law. The principle of double jeopardy prohibits a person from being tried or punished twice for the same offence. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence in the second matter must be set aside.
Source excerpt
S v Moletsane (R79/2004) [2004] ZAFSHC 58 (10 June 2004)
On special review, the court set aside a theft conviction and all proceedings up to 4 August 1999 because the record could not be reconstructed.
Explore more
